Slum dwellers have to vacate Metro 6 site: Bombay HC | Mumbai News – Times of India

0
90

[google-translator]

banner img
Bombay high court. (File image)

MUMBAI: Observing that there was a “serious disputed question of facts”, the Bombay high court has directed around 150 slum dwellers in Jogeshwari (East) to vacate a plot earmarked for the Metro 6 corridor (Swami Samarth Nagar-JVLR-Seepz-Kanjurmarg-Vikhroli) in a fortnight.
The HC dismissed a petition filed in 2019 by slum dwellers who sought directions to MMRDA to determine whether hutments were on land earmarked for Metro 6. Through advocate Aditi Saxena, they claimed to be project-affected persons residing in slums along Jogeshwari railway station on the east and also sought orders to include the slums in the baseline survey of the Metro project, as the procedure prescribed to determine cut-off date “has not been followed by MMRDA”.
MMRDA, through advocate Akshay Shinde, disputed that there were huts on the land when the baseline survey was conducted, but anyway 27 structures in the survey will be offered alternative accommodation. MMRDA made it clear that as the slums in question could not have been found in the affected area, it was not possible to include them, while the petitioners say structures are available even today.
An HC bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar, who heard the matter, said the question is whether the structures petitioners point to existed when MMRDA did the survey or were constructed subsequently: “In our view, there are serious disputed questions of facts involved in this petition. It is not possible to ascertain the correctness of the allegations made in the petition whether these hutment dwellers are already in possession of their respective structures and these structures were in existence on the date of carrying out survey by MMRDA or not.”
The HC said it was “not expected to verify each and every document produced by petitioners and to verify with maps annexed by the parties in support of their rival contentions and to render a finding whether these structures, though were in existence at the time of MMRDA carrying out survey, their names were wrongly not included in the list of structures…”
Saxena pointed to two maps to argue her case while Shinde said neither of the structures was available during the baseline survey.

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

FacebookTwitterInstagramKOO APPYOUTUBE

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here